But the Common Council refused to give the owner permission to reopen the building because of objections from neighbors.

"I would not like to see it become a rooming house, the neighborhood is not conducive to that, we've got some small children here and unless they develop it with college students in mind," said Kelly Shaw who lives across the street from the building.

This is more interesting, why does it matter what the people around the building think about it? They don't own or it or have any rights to it whatsoever. But the cry of the stupid "think of the children."

Thisbymaster:But the Common Council refused to give the owner permission to reopen the building because of objections from neighbors.

"I would not like to see it become a rooming house, the neighborhood is not conducive to that, we've got some small children here and unless they develop it with college students in mind," said Kelly Shaw who lives across the street from the building.

This is more interesting, why does it matter what the people around the building think about it? They don't own or it or have any rights to it whatsoever. But the cry of the stupid "think of the children."

This. Guy spends $200k renovating a building and making it a nice rental property, without a doubt raising the property value and the value of surrounding real estate, and is shunned by neighbors for doing so.

Idiots. I'd beef up the insurance policy and rent out to crack dealers just out of spite.

How can they just use a building they don't own for training? I would think that would be a huge violation of rights. What if there were contractors in there at the time? Would the police dogs attacked them?

Me and a roommate once lived in this real shiathole duplex. We rarely cleaned, old food on the tables, dog crap on the floor, cigarette butts wherever they landed. We used to crack each other up when we'd get home at the same time (usually loaded), enter the house and act shocked "Dude, the pigs trashed our place! Pack your crap, we gotta get outta here, like NOW!"

dudemanbro:Another "cops suck" thread already? Must be some kind of trend.

Sounds fishy:

1. Guy buys burned down building, invests to make it a rental property.2. Building is brought up to code, city council signs off.3. Neighbors complain to city council.4. City council orders building boarded up by court order.5. Owner fights, has order rescinded.6. Police trash building the day after as a "training exercise."7. Owner is run out of town, puts building up for sale.

EvilEgg:How can they just use a building they don't own for training? I would think that would be a huge violation of rights. What if there were contractors in there at the time? Would the police dogs attacked them?

That's the part I found very strange. The owner does not forfeit his property rights just because the city or county boards it up.

EvilEgg:How can they just use a building they don't own for training? I would think that would be a huge violation of rights. What if there were contractors in there at the time? Would the police dogs attacked them?

It's done all the time inside condemned buildings--but then this wasn't condemned. A judge ordered it temporarily boarded.I guess that's enough to give them carte blanche to come in and destroy the place. And not compensate the owner in any way, of course.

FTFA: "I would not like to see it become a rooming house, the neighborhood is not conducive to that, we've got some small children here and unless they develop it with college students in mind," said Kelly Shaw who lives across the street from the building.

Incomplete quotes aside, this woman has clearly never lived anywhere near college students. Transients and hobos would be quieter and probably cleaner, as well.

"I would not like to see it become a rooming house, the neighborhood is not conducive to that, we've got some small children here and unless they develop it with college students in mind," said Kelly Shaw who lives across the street from the building.

Unless they develop it with college students in mind what?

ThisbymasterThis is more interesting, why does it matter what the people around the building think about it? They don't own or it or have any rights to it whatsoever. But the cry of the stupid "think of the children."

Yes, they do have rights to it. When you buy a property you're not just buying the spot it's on, you're paying for the surroundings. Unless you think a half-acre in South Central LA is exactly the same as a half-acre in Manhattan.Anyway, zoning, motherfarker, do you speak it?

RanDomino:"I would not like to see it become a rooming house, the neighborhood is not conducive to that, we've got some small children here and unless they develop it with college students in mind," said Kelly Shaw who lives across the street from the building.

Unless they develop it with college students in mind what?

ThisbymasterThis is more interesting, why does it matter what the people around the building think about it? They don't own or it or have any rights to it whatsoever. But the cry of the stupid "think of the children."

Yes, they do have rights to it. When you buy a property you're not just buying the spot it's on, you're paying for the surroundings. Unless you think a half-acre in South Central LA is exactly the same as a half-acre in Manhattan.Anyway, zoning, motherfarker, do you speak it?

EvilEgg:How can they just use a building they don't own for training? I would think that would be a huge violation of rights. What if there were contractors in there at the time? Would the police dogs attacked them?

The building had probably been declared as abandoned/derelict by the judge which flagged it up as a property not owned by anyone and free to use for training.

In the time between it being OK'ed for use in training and the training taking place, the judge reversed the decision. Although the police messed up not checking the status of the property on the day of the training (although it's possible the status wasn't actually updated depending on how long court paperwork takes to be processed), the home owner must've messed up pretty badly to get the house boarded up in the first place.

abigsmurf:Although the police messed up not checking the status of the property on the day of the training (although it's possible the status wasn't actually updated depending on how long court paperwork takes to be processed), the home owner must've messed up pretty badly to get the house boarded up in the first place.

RTFA. The building was purchased after being damaged by fire, rebuilt, and signed off by the codes department. It was only boarded up after neighborhood residents complained that it was going to be used for rental.

I mean that the fact that zoning exists means that a property owner does not have carte blanche rights to the use of that property.

Did the owner come up with anything that would have been illegal? No, in fact what he planned on doing would have been better for the area but the local corrupt government shut him down. He has the right to do whatever he wants as long as it is legal. He was improving, and the neighbors wanted to tell him who could live in the building, which is a violation of federal housing laws. The neighbors and the government that is in their pocket need a visit from the FBI.

Woah. That looks really dodgy from the other side of the Atlantic, so many questions arise.How do some US police forces get away with screwing up that badly?Surely it was obvious to the officers, once they were inside, that money had been recently spent on the property?Are they tards, very incurious or just not very observant?

abigsmurf:The building had probably been declared as abandoned/derelict by the judge which flagged it up as a property not owned by anyone and free to use for training.

In the time between it being OK'ed for use in training and the training taking place, the judge reversed the decision. Although the police messed up not checking the status of the property on the day of the training (although it's possible the status wasn't actually updated depending on how long court paperwork takes to be processed), the home owner must've messed up pretty badly to get the house boarded up in the first place.

2/10; people have been blaming the victim for centuries, you're just going to have to try harder

bush:abigsmurf: Although the police messed up not checking the status of the property on the day of the training (although it's possible the status wasn't actually updated depending on how long court paperwork takes to be processed), the home owner must've messed up pretty badly to get the house boarded up in the first place.

RTFA. The building was purchased after being damaged by fire, rebuilt, and signed off by the codes department. It was only boarded up after neighborhood residents complained that it was going to be used for rental.

shhh, the cops are never wrong, or, if they are, whoever they wronged was even more wrong. Too many people defend police actions no matter what.

bush:dudemanbro: Another "cops suck" thread already? Must be some kind of trend.

Sounds fishy:

1. Guy buys burned down building, invests to make it a rental property.2. Building is brought up to code, city council signs off.3. Neighbors complain to city council.4. City council orders building boarded up by court order.5. Owner fights, has order rescinded.6. Police trash building the day after as a "training exercise."7. Owner is run out of town, puts building up for sale.

Corrupt local government at its most efficient.

THIS was my thought as well. Seems like the article may not have been telling the whole story.

However, using buildings for training is not unheard of- A few years back the Seattle Fire Department bought (I think they bought it, anyway) a foreclosed house in my parents neighborhood. They proceeded to light and put out mulitiple fires in the house for a week, at all hours of the day. The neighbors were less than pleased about the noise, smell, poisonous fumes, and odd hours. But they had no recourse to prevent the fire fighting training. Eventually the house was almost fully destroyed. I understand firemen need to practice... but this was a frustrating experience for that neighborhood.

abigsmurf:The building had probably been declared as abandoned/derelict by the judge which flagged it up as a property not owned by anyone and free to use for training.

There's no such thing, aside from public land, as property not owned by anyone and even abandoning land does not make it revert to public land. There's no way a simple court order could lead to someone giving up their property rights altogether. There's more to this than the story is telling.

ethics-gradient:Woah. That looks really dodgy from the other side of the Atlantic, so many questions arise.How do some US police forces get away with screwing up that badly?Surely it was obvious to the officers, once they were inside, that money had been recently spent on the property?Are they tards, very incurious or just not very observant?

/Aren't the FBI supposed to watch the watchmen and police the police?

As to your very last questions... no.

As to your first, second, and third questions, it was Buffalo. 'Nuff said.

dudemanbro:Another "cops suck" thread already? Must be some kind of trend.

The trend seems to be be cops in certain areas keep doing dumb things. We can see less headlines like this if some cops didn't do stupid things and make all their fellow law enforcement officers look like jerks by association.

EvilEgg:How can they just use a building they don't own for training? I would think that would be a huge violation of rights. What if there were contractors in there at the time? Would the police dogs attacked them?

This is not an isolated incident. Generally they pull this type of shiat on people that are afraid to speak up for themselves and intimidate those that do.

abigsmurf:In the time between it being OK'ed for use in training and the training taking place, the judge reversed the decision. Although the police messed up not checking the status of the property on the day of the training (although it's possible the status wasn't actually updated depending on how long court paperwork takes to be processed), the home owner must've messed up pretty badly to get the house boarded up in the first place.

Look at the time lime."Last May, the city said the building had been brought up to code.""A few weeks ago, a Buffalo Housing Court judge ordered that the building be boarded up.""When the owner found out, he went to court and had the order rescinded.That was last Monday.""The next day, last Tuesday, the police and their dogs went in."

So, it was "up to code" in May, with "new plumbing and new electric and new heating systems". " "But the Common Council refused to give the owner permission to reopen the building because of objections from neighbors." Then, even though it was up to code, a judge orders it boarded up?? And the cops Immediately ("a few weeks") decide to use it for training?